Physics is made up crap! (Mainly quantum mechanics)

reply to post by Swing80s

Just because I'm explaining the ABSOLUTE FACT that Relativity and QM can't exist together, or because I believe QM is BS outright. What am I wrong about. Prove me wrong.

I prefer any discussion be kept in the forum and not in U2U's to me, serves no purpose to have a closed discussion on an open forum don't you think?

This entire field of Science you off offhandedly dismiss has several real and practical applications, from Quantum computing to Quantum Cryptography.

If these theories were not true these fields would not have practical application, just because you do not understand them does not make them not true.

reply to post by Swing80s


Erm OP, Einstein didn't like quantum physics !

Quantum physics describes a universe that is profoundly mysterious. Einstein, arguably the most revolutionary thinker of modern times, struggled greatly with quantum theory. This groundbreaking new perspective, ironically triggered by his own early work, simply didn't fit his views on physical reality. Would quantum theory not have been as successful as it was, Einstein could have brushed it aside. But from the early days, the theory was immensely successful. And no one around him seemed to have any problems with it. Einstein must have felt lonely at times, but he was convinced enough in the power of his own reasoning to persist in his skepticism towards quantum physics.

Source

I don't profess to a comprehensive understanding of QM, but I certainly don't dissmiss it as rubbish.

To dare to dream, is to invent, create, and discover !

What does QM have to do with "practical" applications when you get to theories smaller than e-?

reply to post by benrl


Enlighten me O Teddy about why spending trillions on partical accelerators to come up with a theory about microscopic teleportation has anything to do with progressing society. I am not naive like you think I am. As somebody learned and trained in the chemistry and biology of small things QM is very intrguing to me, but why not spend those billions on things a little bit bigger than QM such as microbiology and organic chemistry. Which aren't ideas in somebodies head written in foreign text nobody outside from a learned few can explain, but instead using that money to isolate enzymes and proteins with curative properties that can help the world better than what's going on in somebodies head that doesn't go out too much...

reply to post by Swing80s

I agree Swing80s. Here is a quote:

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. (Nikola Tesla)

"Geometry is a surrealistic discipline that purports to describe the static world of Physics with the dynamic language of
Mathematics. The mathematicians have confused points with locations, distance with displacement, dimensions and coordinates with number lines, and solids with volumes. After 3000 years of history and experience, the mathematicians can't even tell you what a number is.


Mathematics is a science of behavior. Physics is the science of existence. Mathematics only studies
adverbs (relations, how something moves, etc.). Physics deals with the remaining grammatical
categories. Mathematical Physics deals with what an observer measures and perceives. Physics is
observer-free. Physics deals with 'what is' irrespective of testimony or artificial standards. Mathematics
is not only NOT the language of Physics, it has absolutely nothing to do with Physics" (Bill Gaede)

Check out www.feandft.com...


Everyone should definitely check out the works of Walter Russell.
Here is a collection of his books: www.scribd.com...
His Cosmology explains the Universe whereas academic theories guess at it and explain nothing.

The link to your video does not exist on you tube. Could you find it please? I'm curious because I love Nikolai Tesla

QM is needed to help explain where electrons are at any given time. Pauli exclusion principle, Uncertainty principle, Schrodingers equation etc. It's not like chem 101 with orbitals, atoms are not like little solar systems in reality. That is just a simple way to explain it so new budding scientific minds, or as an ex-professor of mine would say, peabrains, can grasp the concept.

They need the "made up" symbols because they have to have a way to label what they are trying to explain and keep it all in order, so that they can prove it first mathematically, then attempt to prove it experimentally. If the math doesn't work out then in all probability it won't work. And since these things are so small, for them to attempt to prove their hypothesis's and theories, they need the super colliders to observe and collect data on what makes up atoms and electrons, and see how they behave.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

IMO the study of QM could lead to new chemical combinations that could be developed into groundbreaking medicines. Really who knows. maybe a new source of fuel, It has led to the development of higher mass elements. There is a recent thread about the making of element 115 and 113. The "created" elements are highly unstable. Well it is theorized there is a realm of stability above 118. It could lead to new elements with who knows what properties. Maybe a new metal that is like titanium but as light as helium. nobody knows. but if we want to know, then it's necessary.

Originally posted by Swing80s
The link to your video does not exist on you tube. Could you find it please? I'm curious because I love Nikolai Tesla

Sorry, I was not familiar with the ATS youtube embedding system.

A potential practical application of the study of QM would be the ability to utilize 3D printers to their fullest potential. The"ink cartridges" would contain atoms. And then it could "print" a real life apple, like the star trek replicators.

Here are many links explaining why we study quantum mechanics.

www.google.com...=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=why+we+study+quantum+mechanics&oq=why+study+quantum+mech&gs_l=hp.1.1.0j0i8i30.884.5038.0.8412.22.13.0.9. 9.0.157.1324.7j6.13.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.QsxSmqyvgIU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=708bd950daecd80b&biw=1347&bih=809

Its easy to underestimate the value of the theoretical scientists. Without them, the engineers and such wouldn't have the direction or ideas of the new things like nuclear power. The theoretical scientists bring in a lot of origional ideas.

Its not easy to relate to 'theoretical' physics that can't directly be observed and interacted with the way 'real world' physics are. Sometimes it also takes knowledge of other branches of physics that are difficult. That is why it takes the brightest, most intelligent people years of high level education to gain an understanding of these mind-boggleing ideas.

Originally posted by Swing80s
Space doesn't have pixels, so essentially an electron can travel through an infinite number of spaces while it's traveling around an atom's protons and neutrons. But that's just speculation on my part just like how other scientists "speculate".

Can you show an equation that allows you to 'speculate' that space isn't made of 'pixels'? The problem with the infinitely small movments idea is that the functions collapse at some point relative to distance and time. The current Planck Length model suggests that everything is made in 'pixels'.

The Planck length is about 10^(−20) times the diameter of a proton

100,000,000,000,000,000,000 Plancks in the diameter of a proton?? thats small.

The best way I can grasp it is first, we KNOW the speed of light has a LIMIT. Also imagine we have a camera that could capture slow-motion video of light moving through space. Now we have a previously recorded video of light slowd soooo much, and you have a remote hitting play/pause,.... play/pause,.... play/pause.... repeatedly untill you see the light move one movement on the screen. This would be 1 planck length.

We can KNOW this exists because nothing can move through 'pixels' faster than light because it would also move faster than TIME and would not show up in the video. This Planck Length is also relative to the smallest amount of 'measurable' TIME. Any smaller measurement of TIME, and the ray of light doesn't even move one pixel.

This doens't likely have any practical uses, but it helps us to understand what is happening on levels that we could never observe. Note how the equation has a standard deviation variable, I think because in the method of this theory the unit of TIME can still be broken down smaller and smaller of where the planck actually begins and ends...

Threads like these are utterly fascinating.

It's like watching Planet of the Apes backwards, except as the principal applies to people, where instead of apes getting smarter, people/humans are doing quite the opposite; devolving into a simian-like stupor of frustrated self enforcing ignorance.

Ah well the OP was always gonna be asking for a real backlash with this rant but he speaks for a number of us who sometimes feel that some of the claims of qm theorists border on the ridiculous.lol.

I mean I have a degree in engineering and have somewhat of a grasp on physics as you may imagine though its the physics of the larger than sub atomic mostly but i take a genuine interest in quantum mechanics and theoretical comsmology believing I have a good handle on it but i hear of string theory,m theory,that reality is pixelated,12 and 13 dimensions etc,etc.

And sometimes I get the feeling it's like when a bunch of people stand round some modern art and listen to a critic espouse it's significance and themes.No one dares say he's talking crap,which he is because no one gets it well enough to have the nerve to speak up and risk looking a fool.In other words a case of the Emperor's clothes !!!

Now I know it's not like that and the reason it seems like that at times is because it's above my head.Fair enough I'd happily butt heads with a theoretical physicist when it comes to wringing more bhp and torque out of a particular engine but dimensional physics and quantum theory - see the white flag waving.lol !!!

It's just there are times when it all begins to sound llke they could claim what they wish to and few have the ability to follow it with any true understanding even,let alone question it !!!

I know it comes down to my inability to truly visualise the quantum world and therefore fully grasp it in the way i do other concepts which leads to my frustration with that side of physics.
And maybe the OP has a much more specific reason to feel how he does about it but still i feel he's talking for the frustrated physics devotees who are a lot more at home in the larger than sub atomic world.lol !!!

reply to post by Druscilla


First off you don't really know what you or we are even talking about.


Second I agree with Southern in that it gets to a point where you're watching the science channel or listening or reading what certain physicist are talking about and you just have to stand there and say "Come on!"

BTW Stephen Hawkings version of physics, although it has greek symbols and looks like a math equation is NO MATH EQUATION AT ALL. ALL THE EQUATION REPRESENTS IS SOME REDICULOUS THOUGHT. I don't know how they can consider soem of these equations "mathematics" at all.

reply to post by Swing80s

Originally posted by Swing80s
reply to post by Druscilla

 

First off you don't really know what you or we are even talking about.


Second I agree with Southern in that it gets to a point where you're watching the science channel or listening or reading what certain physicist are talking about and you just have to stand there and say "Come on!"

BTW Stephen Hawkings version of physics, although it has greek symbols and looks like a math equation is NO MATH EQUATION AT ALL. ALL THE EQUATION REPRESENTS IS SOME REDICULOUS THOUGHT. I don't know how they can consider soem of these equations "mathematics" at all.

Riiiiiiiggght, and that's why people all over the planet, physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists, scientists all know how to read and write this 'nonsense', and week after week, year after year dedicate their lives to describing the universe and the world around us in using the language of math.

Take this paper, for instance: The fastest way to circle a black hole

Just because you lack the facility, training, education, and/or horsepower between your ears to understand what's being said/described, doesn't make it not-true.

Science gives not one %#$* whether you have the facility to understand the math.

Your impairment and lack of facility is not the problem of Science.
Your impairment and lack of facility is your problem.

Your argument is like saying that just because you can't understand Russian, and all the characters used in Cyrillic writing are not Latin based that the entire language is nonsense.

Провал в рассуждениях некоторых людей поражает

The entire premise behind this argument is ridiculous.

If you can't understand it, quit crying about it and go get an education.

This:

BTW Stephen Hawkings version of physics, although it has greek symbols and looks like a math equation is NO MATH EQUATION AT ALL. ALL THE EQUATION REPRESENTS IS SOME REDICULOUS THOUGHT. I don't know how they can consider soem of these equations "mathematics" at all.

This leaves ME saying "Come on!" Why? You can't even spell "ridiculous", plus you need resort to all caps.

Why are you so insistent on crafting your public embarrassment?

Please, just go get an education.
If you can't understand it, and you do the work, put in the hours and years of study to be able to understand the language of Math, or any other language you apply yourself to understanding, then, you will be able to understand what's being said.

Just because you can't understand something, doesn't mean that other people can't.

Not "understanding" something does not make it any less real. Quantum Physics is an evolutionary step in our ongoing attempt to "make sense of it all".

If anyone is having trouble with the concepts in quantum physics and has the stomach to try to understand it, here's a very good article to read:

Conventional wisdom holds that quantum mechanics is hard to learn. This is more or less correct, although often overstated. However, the necessity of abandoning conventional ways of thinking about the world, and finding a radically new way – quantum mechanics – can be understood by any intelligent person willing to spend some time concentrating hard. Conveying that understanding is the purpose of this essay.

Reading the essay requires a little more effort than most blog posts. The argument is occasionally a little abstract, and you may need to read over some paragraphs quite carefully, or perhaps more than once. Ideally, you’ll test your understanding by explaining the entire argument to someone else. The effort is worth it, for when you’re done, you’ll understand one of the great discoveries of all time: why the world needs quantum mechanics.

One of the challenges of understanding modern physics is that some of the concepts seem quite abstract when you’re talking about microscopic objects outside the realm of everyday experience.

Why The World Needs Quantum Mechanics

Even the Quantum experts do not fully understand Quantum Mechanics. So, to the lay people, it is even more difficult to grasp.

That said, doesn't mean it's not true.

If you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you don't understand Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is the single best tested physical theory devised by man. It needs to be absolutely correct to 1 part in several billion in order for the computer I'm writing this upon to function. The fact that you transmitted your message belies its content and proves you wrong.

reply to post by Swing80s


When people use the word "theory" the way you did, it really grinds my gears for some reason.

a "guess" is a hypothesis.

If the "guess" has been repeatedly tested and proven to not be false, then it becomes a theory.

If a theory has been repeatedly proven to not be false, then it becomes a law.

For example, the theory of relativity has been tested tons of times and is pretty much true; It's not just a "theory".
The statement grape Kool-aid cures cancer is a "theory" as you used it.


I can't blame you. You hear people say, "I have a theory" on TV all the time. I guess saying, "I have a hypothesis" makes you sound like you belong on Dinosaur Train ( I have toddlers ).

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by Swing80s

 

No but Einstein's theory did help lead to the bomb. In 1905, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, he made the intriguing point that a large amount of energy could be released from a small amount of matter. This was expressed by the equation E=mc2 (energy = mass times the speed of light squared). The atomic bomb would clearly illustrate this principle.

edit on 29-9-2012 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)

Einstein's theory was pretty much irrelevant and did not in any way lead to the A-bomb. The observation of nuclear fission and then induced nuclear fission lead to a realization by a number of scientists simultaneously what the consequences could be. After that it was a bunch of very hard work and engineering. If there is any scientist who is the father of the A-bomb more than any other it is Enrico Fermi, who understood the layout of the entire plan, from theory, to experiment to engineering.